Police officer's word as evidence

  • Drivingforfun's Avatar
    Is there a certain reason that a police officer's word is considered sufficient grounds for a prosecution of someone using their phone at the wheel?

    Why do other offences (like speeding) have to be proven with evidence?

    I asked a police officer relative and they didn't know

    Thanks
  • 10 Replies

  • Beelzebub's Avatar
    A police officer's statement IS evidence (as is anyone else's), and can be used to successfully prosecute a speeding charge in some circumstances..

    It is up to a court to decide whether an officer's evidence is credible, against that of the accused person.

    Bear in mind that an accused person has a vested interest in convincing the court of his innocence. A police officer has not

    On the contrary, the policeman would be risking his job (and a possible prosecution) in making a false accusation. It is not as if there is any shortage of genuine speeders etc. for him to take action against.
  • TC1474's Avatar
    A Police officer cannot as a rule give evidence of opinion except in a couple of circumstances, the first being the opinion that someone was/is drunk and the second is for excess speed, where a Traffic officer is deemed an exert and is allowed to give the opinion that someone was speeding but this is then usually corroborated by a device such as a calibrated speedometer in a following check (over 1 mile on a motorway or 3/10 of a mile on all other roads)

    VASCAR which measures time over distance and gives an average speed, Lazer which provides an exact speed, and Truvello which is the 2 cables placed across the carriageway 1.85 meters apart.

    When it comes to using a mobile phone it has always been deemed (as for 99% of offences) that the Police would only stop and report a driver for offences if

    1. The officer has seen the commission of the offence
    2. The officer is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute for the offence

    Bear in mind that the use of the mobile phone only applies to using a hand held device (Bluetooth and hands free are still legal), and the loopholes, (which I can explain if wanted) were removed in 2022.

    Always bear in mind that the Police do have the power (as happens in any crash where an allegation or belief that a phone was used at the time) to request the phone records of that individual just as the alleged offended can use his/her phone records to prove that they were not on the phone at the alleged time, so it works both ways.

    So this is why a Police officers word is usually sufficient backed up by contemporaneous notes (often a FPN or Offence report HO/RT10) and the courts will usually take the officer at his word unless evidence is produced to the contrary or it is contradicted by some hard contrary evidence.

    That having been said, I would be kidding myself if I said that there are some coppers who are not honest, and that applies to all walks of life, but in the majority of cases most coppers will do the job to the best of their ability and honestly but mistakes also get made.

    With a phone offence though, it is too much of a minor offence to drop yourself in the sh!t and the courts will still take coppers at their word especially as a case can be proved or disproved by production of the phone records.

    This is why drivers (or anyone alleged to have committed an offence for that matter) have the right to plead not guilty (even if given a FPN) and go to court to argue your case before the courts.

    I lost count of the number of people I booked for using and held devices, and always remember if a crash or other incident occurs (even using Bluetooth) could result in a prosecution for dangerous driving or careless driving and in the case of a fatality (again which I have dealt with many) a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving.

    In conclusion, most offences have the evidence corroborated by evidence or witnesses, but traffic offences are still prosecuted in the main on the trust of the Police by the courts with only a few (as I have explained) requiring corroboration, but even then much is backed up these days n-by on board cameras although these are mainly only fitted to Traffic cars as Panda car drivers have to jump through hoops to do anyone for speed offences.
    Last edited by TC1474; 09-06-24 at 17:52.
  • NMNeil's Avatar
    We had a few challenges to the no cell phone use while driving, in the form of "you have no evidence"
    I would seize the cell phone as evidence of the crime: simple.
    I then had a few days to apply for a search warrant, and when it was granted I had 10 days in which to execute the warrant and search the phone to see if he was using the phone at that exact time of the traffic stop. If the phone had a passcode and the owner refused to tell me what it was I kept the phone until he did tell me.
    I even had one driver throw his phone in his glove box and then grinned at me saying he knew his rights and I can't conduct a warrentless search of his car.
    True, so I impounded the car and got a warrant to search the car for the cell phone, because I knew his rights better than he did.
    I won't tell you what I found in the glove box, but the driver got jail time because of it, added to this was that only the registered owner of the car could get it out of impound, and the driver, who was a "side of the road" used car dealer naturally hadn't put the title in his name.
    As far as I know the phone and car are still being held as evidence.
    All that to avoid a $20 ticket 🙄
  • TC1474's Avatar
    @NMNeil

    I am guessing you are in the USA (or at least not in the UK) where your rules are very different to ours?
  • Rolebama's Avatar
    I was the only witness to come forward after a collision on the M4 some years ago. I alleged that driver A was 100% responsible for the collision by driving at a speed unsuitable for the circumstances. When giving evidence in Court I was asked to explain how I knew driver A's speed. I was attending a breakdown on the hard shoulder when it happened, and I explained that I had driven, at that time, over 1,000,000 miles collectively in the Army, my private life, and working life. I was accepted as an expert witness as to speed. The driver of the car driver A had hit was not in attendance as he had stated he had not seen anything, only felt the impact. Purely on my evidence driver A was found guilty of Driving Without Due Care and Attention or something , (I wasn't there for the reading of the charge), and fined £250, 3 points on his Licence and banned for three months. (He was very surly and arrogant when he gave evidence in his defence which I think is never a good idea). He did not appeal.
  • NMNeil's Avatar
    @NMNeil

    I am guessing you are in the USA (or at least not in the UK) where your rules are very different to ours?
    British by birth, moved from Croydon to Los Angeles in 96, so I've seen both UK, and US law, and there's very little difference.
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/19
    And premises does include vehicles
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/23
  • TC1474's Avatar
    British by birth, moved from Croydon to Los Angeles in 96, so I've seen both UK, and US law, and there's very little difference.
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/19
    And premises does include vehicles
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/23

    Fair enough.

    I am fully familiar with PACE, and a warrant here is not required to obtain phone records or to search a vehicle
  • NMNeil's Avatar
    We can only search without a warrant if it's incident to an arrest, or in exigent circumstances. We can seize objects at the scene but must obtain a warrant afterwards and articulate why the object was seized without the warrant in the first place.
    Can get really complicated.
  • Mark07's Avatar
    Community Manager
    Is there a certain reason that a police officer's word is considered sufficient grounds for a prosecution of someone using their phone at the wheel?

    I don't know for sure, but i always guessed that a judge/jury give the uniform and training extra weight compared to joe public.

    Eye witness statements are notoriously unreliable though.
  • Rolebama's Avatar
    Some years ago a TV company, in cooperation with the Met Police staged an abduction on a busy London street. This was immediately followed up by lots of Police Officers asking people what they had seen. (The abduction was staged by a screech of tyres as the van pulled up, followed with a lot of screaming and shouting by those involved, to attract as many onlookers as possible.) The vehicle was described as anything from a van to a saloon, and every colour of the rainbow. As for the abductors, the number varied from 3 to 6 with a variety of ethnic origins being quoted. The victim was generally aged correctly, but was described as wearing a variety of clothes in a multitude of colours. All the witnesses were adamant that their descriptions were the correct ones until they were shown footage of the event. Some denied the footage saying it was of another event. Quite horrifying reality TV.